nigelm

Now that dedicated Traffic Police are an endangered species, can plod in a van or a fiesta etc pull you for speeding. If they don't have a Class 1 permit and a calibrated speedo how can anything they claim be justified?

GaryC

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by nigelm:
<B>Now that dedicated Traffic Police are an endangered species[/quote]


I'm sorry - what country (or planet) are you talking about?

The (unfortunate) only way they will be come endangered is whne they finally break the final straw and someone puts them out of their misery


{Thinking out loud} with Foot and Mouth affecting Pigs, and movement of affected animals outlawed...... I say throw sheep dip over them all whenever you see one

JasonHook

I'm not a lawyer so what follows is my interpretation of Butterworths explanation of proof required for speeding offences:

Paraphrasing the Sixth Edition of Butterworths Police law:

Sec 89(2) of the 1984 Road Traffic regulation Act states that a person must not be convicted for speeding on the basis of the evidence of one witness who says that the person being prosecuted was driving in excess of the speed limit. The witness' evidence must be supported but not necessarily by the evidence of another witness. The supporting evidence may come from a mechanical device which is then read by police. Stop watches may be used to determine a vehicles speed over a measured distance. Apparently there is no technical reason why the opinions of two witnesses could not satify the courts that the offence had been commited but this would not normally be enough unless the speed was alleged to have been far in excess of the limit. Where two officers are detecting speeding offences they can keep one record of the events provided they both check and confirm the accuracy of the record at the time.
Calculations made at the scene of an accident may support an officers opinion as to the speeed of the vehicle(s).

There are lots of procedural and technical issues relating to the use of speed measuring devices approved by the secretary of state which are probably covered on the usual speedtrap sites.

Again I'm paraphrasing Butterworths but that appears to me to be the gist of it.

StuartH would be able I guess if he were willing to comment on the above from a Traffic Officers point of view.

Hope the above helps
Jason

nigelm

Thanks Jason

Gary C, read in local paper last week that in Essex Traffic Officers would no longer deal exclusively with traffic. No offence intended.

GaryC

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by nigelm:
<B>Thanks Jason

Gary C, read in local paper last week that in Essex Traffic Officers would no longer deal exclusively with traffic. No offence intended.[/quote]

In other words they will also victimise other members of the general public

MorayMackenzie

...thereby having less time to "victimise" drivers.

Class One Traffic Cops tend to be, IMHO, the guys that are less likely to "victimise" drivers unless there is a good reason. It's the wannabe traffic cops and the "everyone's guilty of something" type of cops that are more likely to victimise people.

Moray